Intel Core i7-10700F vs Intel Core i7-8700K Comparison

The data presents a clear generational contest between two Intel desktop processors, with the newer Core i7-10700F holding a decisive advantage across nearly every benchmark. Of the 19 head-to-head tests recorded, the 10700F wins 17, while the 8700K manages just 2 narrow victories. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the 10700F posts 19,499 versus 19,238 for the 8700K, and both CPUs sit at the 73rd percentile among all processors. The margin of overall victory is modest in percentage terms, but the pattern of wins is overwhelmingly one-sided, suggesting that the architectural and core-count differences translate into consistent performance gains for the newer part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking advantage for the Intel Core i7-10700F appears in computational throughput tests. In PassMark integer math, the 10700F scores 62,579 against the 8700K’s 45,892, a gap of 36.4%. Floating-point math shows a similarly large separation, with the 10700F at 38,578 versus 28,538, a 35.2% advantage. These are the two largest deltas in the entire comparison, and they indicate that the 10700F’s additional two cores and four threads make a substantial difference in raw arithmetic processing.

Cinebench results reinforce this pattern across multiple versions. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 10700F scores 13,689 compared to the 8700K’s 11,527, a gain of 18.8%. The same percentage advantage appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (5,749 vs 4,841) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (1,379 vs 1,161), all showing exactly 18.8% improvements. The consistency of this delta across three different Cinebench versions suggests the performance scaling is highly predictable and tied directly to the core count difference rather than any workload-specific quirk.

Single-core performance tells a more nuanced story. The 10700F leads in PassMark single-thread tests with 2,875 versus 2,720, a 5.7% advantage. Cinebench single-core results show a larger gap: R23 gives the 10700F a 18.7% lead (1,932 vs 1,627), and R20 shows 18.7% as well (811 vs 683). However, Geekbench single-core actually favors the 8700K, with a score of 1,575 versus 1,555, a 1.3% edge for the older chip. This single data point is notable because it breaks the trend, suggesting that the 8700K’s higher base clock of 3.70 GHz compared to 2.90 GHz may help in certain lightly-threaded workloads that are sensitive to sustained frequency rather than boost behavior.

The 8700K’s other win comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 811 against the 10700F’s 803, a 1% advantage. This is a remarkably close result, and it is the only other benchmark where the older processor emerges ahead. The PassMark multithread test shows the 10700F winning by 19.5% (16,227 vs 13,576), while data compression shows a 27.3% lead (253,358 vs 198,951) and random string sorting shows a 25.1% lead (31,625 vs 25,270). Extended instructions testing gives the 10700F a 21.3% advantage (16,389 vs 13,514), and prime number finding shows a 20.5% lead (47 vs 39).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-10700F is the clear choice for multi-threaded workloads that can utilize all 16 threads. The data shows consistent double-digit leads in every multi-core test, ranging from 10.2% in Geekbench multi-core (7,867 vs 7,140) to 36.4% in PassMark integer math. Rendering, video encoding, software compilation, and scientific computing workloads that scale with thread count will all benefit substantially from the 10700F’s two additional cores.

The 10700F also wins in most single-threaded scenarios, despite the 8700K’s higher base clock. PassMark single-thread shows a 5.7% lead, and Cinebench single-core tests show nearly 19% advantages. This suggests that the 10700F’s boost clock of 4.80 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the 8700K’s 4.70 GHz, translates into tangible gains in lightly-threaded tasks like web browsing, office productivity, and older games that rely on one or two primary threads.

The Intel Core i7-8700K’s wins are narrow and specific. Its Geekbench single-core victory of 1.3% and PassMark physics victory of 1% indicate that in very particular scenarios, the older architecture can hold its own. The physics result is especially interesting because it is a compute-heavy test that often benefits from higher clock speeds rather than more cores, and the 8700K’s 3.70 GHz base clock may provide a more consistent frequency under load compared to the 10700F’s lower base frequency. Users running physics simulations or similar single-thread-dominated workloads might see near-identical performance from both CPUs.

For multitasking and mixed workloads, the 10700F’s data encryption advantage of 12.6% (5,378 vs 4,776) and data compression advantage of 27.3% make it the stronger all-around performer. The 8700K has no category where it leads by more than 1.3%, while the 10700F leads by double digits in 13 of the 19 head-to-head tests.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s 14 nm process node and use the same foundry, but they belong to different architectural generations. The 10700F uses the Comet Lake architecture, released on 2020-04-29, while the 8700K uses the older Coffee Lake architecture, released on 2017-10-04. This roughly 2.5-year gap explains many of the performance differences, even though both use the same underlying process technology.

The core counts differ significantly: the 10700F has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the 8700K has 6 cores and 12 threads. This 33% increase in core and thread count is the primary driver of the multi-threaded performance advantages. The cache hierarchy also differs, with the 10700F offering 16 MB of shared L3 cache versus 12 MB on the 8700K. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, so the per-core cache structure is identical; only the total L3 capacity differs.

The 10700F has a lower base clock of 2.90 GHz compared to the 8700K’s 3.70 GHz, but a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. This means the 8700K starts from a higher frequency baseline but cannot boost as high, while the 10700F relies more on boost behavior to reach its performance peaks. The 10700F also has a much lower TDP of 65 watts compared to the 8700K’s 95 watts, indicating better power efficiency per unit of performance despite the higher core count.

Memory bandwidth differs slightly, with the 10700F supporting 46.9 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s for the 8700K, both using dual-channel DDR4 memory. The 10700F uses the Intel Socket 1200 platform, while the 8700K uses the older Intel Socket 1151. The 8700K includes integrated UHD Graphics 630, while the 10700F has no integrated graphics, which explains the "F" suffix in its name. The 8700K has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, while the 10700F is locked. The 8700K’s die size is listed as 154 mm², while no die size is provided for the 10700F. The 8700K has a launch MSRP of $359 and is marked end-of-life, while the 10700F is still active in production.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core i7-10700F as the superior processor for almost all use cases. Its 18.8% lead across all Cinebench multi-core tests and 36.4% lead in PassMark integer math demonstrate that the extra two cores provide meaningful real-world benefits. The 10700F also wins on single-thread performance in most tests, with a 5.7% lead in PassMark single-thread and 18.7% leads in Cinebench single-core tests, meaning even older software that relies on one or two threads will run faster on the newer chip.

The 8700K’s only advantages are a 1.3% Geekbench single-core lead and a 1% PassMark physics lead, both of which are within the margin of test variance. The 8700K’s higher base clock of 3.70 GHz might appeal to users who run sustained workloads at fixed frequencies, but the 10700F’s higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz appears to deliver better results in most scenarios. The 8700K does offer an unlocked multiplier, which is a consideration for overclocking enthusiasts, but the benchmark data does not include any overclocked results.

For users building a new system, the 10700F is the clear recommendation based on performance alone. It wins 17 of 19 benchmarks, has a higher average score, and offers better efficiency with a 65-watt TDP versus 95 watts. The 8700K remains relevant only for those already on the Socket 1151 platform who want to avoid a motherboard upgrade, or for users who specifically require integrated graphics and an unlocked multiplier. However, the data shows that the 10700F is the better processor in nearly every measurable way.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i7-10700F has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i7-8700K has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the 10700F scores 62,579 versus the 8700K’s 45,892, a 36.4% advantage.

Q: Does the 8700K win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the 8700K wins Geekbench single-core with a score of 1,575 versus 1,555 (a 1.3% lead) and PassMark physics with 811 versus 803 (a 1% lead).

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both the 10700F and the 8700K are built on Intel’s 14 nm process node.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i7-8700K includes UHD Graphics 630, while the Intel Core i7-10700F has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The 10700F has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the 8700K’s 4.70 GHz boost clock.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-10700F | Intel Core i7-8700K |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 16 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Architecture | Comet Lake | Coffee Lake |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 46.9 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2020-04-29 | 2017-10-04 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | SRH70 | SR3QRQNMK |

| Die Size | Not specified | 154 mm² |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $359 |